Endangered California condors still face lead poisoning threat

Analysis shows population can’t recover if use of lead ammunition continues.

It may not be the most charismatic species, but the endangered California condor, a bird with an incredible wingspan of nearly 10 feet, has received a lot of attention over the years. After dropping to a population of just 22 individuals in the early 1980s, captive breeding programs have boosted their numbers to around 400, with some 200 living in the wild. Even that small population is extremely high-maintenance, however. All the birds are tracked by radio or GPS tags, and are frequently caught for medical examination and treatment.

As is the case with most birds that eat carrion, lead poisoning has long been a concern for the condors. When large animals are killed by a hunter’s lead bullet but not harvested, they can become a dangerous meal. When the birds eat the meat, they can ingest lead particles along with it.

When the condors get their medical checkup, a blood sample is analyzed for lead. If the levels are dangerously high, the birds are given treatment. The impact of lead poisoning on the condor population has long been debated, but a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides some clarity. It shows that many condors are suffering the effects of lead poisoning, suggesting the population will continue to struggle as long as lead ammunition remains in use.

Researchers compiled the results of over 1,100 blood samples taken from 150 California condors between 1997 and 2010. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children with blood lead levels above 450 ng/ml undergo treatment, and this is roughly the level at which the condors are taken in for treatment as well. About 20 percent of the birds sampled each year exceeded this level, and 48 percent of individuals living in the wild exceeded it at some point during the 14-year period. Blood lead levels as high as 6,100 ng/ml were seen.

Because blood samples only provide a snapshot of lead levels, the group also analyzed feathers from 18 condors. The concentration of lead in each segment of the feather depends on the concentration in the body at the time that segment formed. That means that each feather records a few months of exposure history. From comparisons of the most recent segment to blood levels, they were able to estimate blood lead levels over the duration of the feather.

The feathers showed that after ingesting lead, the birds’ blood concentrations exceeded 450 ng/ml for about a month. Unsurprisingly, blood samples often miss the peak lead concentrations, which were 1.4x to 14.4x higher. About 34 percent of the average feather history was higher than the level at which the condors are treated.

Lead poisoning has consequences at concentrations lower than those that are lethal, but they are difficult to determine in wild populations. To get a handle on how sensitive California condors were to lead poisoning, the researchers measured a biomarker (δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase, or ALAD, enzyme activity) in 60 blood samples from 34 birds. That enzyme is important in a number of biochemical pathways, and its activity is strongly inhibited by lead, making it a great indicator of the effect of lead in the body. At blood lead levels of 450 ng/ml, the activity of ALAD was suppressed by 90 percent. Even at 200 ng/ml (a level exceeded by about 30 percent of blood samples each year, and for more than half of the duration of the feather records), activity was down 60 percent.

But how can we be sure the lead in those condors came from ammunition in carcasses and not some natural source? To see, the researchers measured the lead-207/lead-206 isotopic signature in 132 blood samples. Of those samples, 79 percent were consistent with lead ammunition and 27 percent were within the range of “background” ratios in captive birds (there’s some overlap). Several birds had isotopic signatures similar to lead-based paint, and had been observed roosting in an old fire tower with peeling lead paint.

If lead ammunition is a real problem for California condors, where does that leave the effort to restore the population? To answer that question, the group used population models and several scenarios. If present conditions continue, with the same lead exposure and active care of the birds, the wild population would just barely grow. The authors write, “without future releases of captive-reared birds, the population would take ∼1,800 [years] to meet the recovery goal of a noncaptive population of 150 individuals within California.”

If, instead, we gave up on the expensive work of capturing birds and treating those with high blood lead levels, the population would decline back to 22 in one to six decades. Finally, if lead exposure was eliminated, the wild population would grow at a rate of about 2 percent per year. And that’s a conservative estimate, the researchers say, because their “estimated rate of lead-caused mortality is based on the actual deaths that occurred despite intensive management interventions to mitigate lead poisonings; if lead was truly removed as an environmental hazard, the increase in condor health and survival should be substantially greater than modeled here.”

That is likely the outcome that California authorities were hoping for when, in 2008, they instituted a ban on lead ammunition for hunting many species within the condor’s range in southern California. But when the researchers compared blood lead levels in condors before the ban (2006-2007) and after (2009-2010), they found no improvement.

The researchers are currently evaluating the ineffectiveness of the ban so far, including a look at whether hunters are fully complying with the new rule. Myra Finkelstein, a University of California-Santa Cruz researcher involved in the project, told Ars that “even if only a few people are still using lead ammunition, there will be enough contaminated carcasses to cause lead poisoning in a significant number of condors. We found that over the course of ten years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will encounter a contaminated carcass is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

On the national stage, 100 conservation groups recently filed a lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency for denying petitions asking it to regulate lead ammunition used for hunting. The agency says it has no authority to do so, a fact the groups are challenging in court.

Promoted Comments

Is the replacement for lead ammo any better? It seems like any useable ammunition would still cause heavy metal poisoning.

Non-lead ammo is usually copper and/or gilding metal. Because of the lower demand, they are a bit more expensive than 'regular' bullets (with lead). It also requires a bit more engineering since the bullets need to be designed to expand and such properly (one of the great properties of lead is that it is malleable but the other metals aren't as malleable) for hunting purposes. The latest designs, though, actually have pretty good performance. They open up like flower petals but they rarely break off and retain weight (maintain momentum) well so the penetration is generally excellent... better than lead bullets of the same weights since lead bullets will break pieces off more and lose weight as they pass through.

Enforcement is hard. But its worth the cost if they can invest the right time and effort. The state agencies need to work with the local sportsman outfits to improve education and compliance. And they could even consider checkpoints to stop hunters during hunting season to check their ammo for compliance.

Considering the hunters I know are very good about tracking and finding the animals that run and taking out the carcass the odds are it's the guys that poach/don't care about anything that are causing the issues. Not the law abiding hunters that actually care, including caring about conservation. Which are who the ban actually affects.

Considering the hunters I know are very good about tracking and finding the animals that run and taking out the carcass the odds are it's the guys that poach/don't care about anything that are causing the issues. Not the law abiding hunters that actually care, including caring about conservation. Which are who the ban actually affects.

"But how can we be sure the lead in those condors came from ammunition in carcasses and not some natural source? To see, the researchers measured the lead-207/lead-206 isotopic signature in 132 blood samples. Of those samples, 79 percent were consistent with lead ammunition and 27 percent were within the range of “background” ratios in captive birds (there’s some overlap). "

This strikes me as a bit odd. There are a number of different ammunition manufacturers, do they all have the same lead isotopes?

Frankly the whole concept that there are a lot of people hunting and killing animals but then not collecting the carcass seems suspect. I can imagine people killing 'pest' species and leaving the carcass, but im not so sure how widespread that might be. With such a small sample size, its possible that the results might be skewed by a few cases or a few false positives.

Considering the hunters I know are very good about tracking and finding the animals that run and taking out the carcass the odds are it's the guys that poach/don't care about anything that are causing the issues. Not the law abiding hunters that actually care, including caring about conservation. Which are who the ban actually affects.

I was thinking what hunters could be hunting that they lose so much game so easily and maybe that they need to educate their hunters but I think you are exactly right, instead.

One pretty major correction: the lead-ban petition targets not ammo used in hunting, it targets ammunition used "for shooting sports", meaning essential all non-exotic, non-hollowpoint ammunition.

Because of existing regulation on the use of exotic dense metals in handgun bullets (due to previous concerns about 'armor-piercing' bullets), there are very few practical metals this would leave you handgun ammunition. This is why this proposal has received significant push-back from the gun-rights community.

@HisMajestyTheKing: Non-lead ammo is about twice the price of jacketed-lead. This is probably not very significant when you're talking about hunting, where you might shoot a couple dozen rounds in a very unsuccessful day. When you're talking about 'shooting sports' in general, you might run 200 rounds a day in an average match, you're talking about pricing most people out of the sport.

Is the replacement for lead ammo any better? It seems like any useable ammunition would still cause heavy metal poisoning.

Non-lead ammo is usually copper and/or gilding metal. Because of the lower demand, they are a bit more expensive than 'regular' bullets (with lead). It also requires a bit more engineering since the bullets need to be designed to expand and such properly (one of the great properties of lead is that it is malleable but the other metals aren't as malleable) for hunting purposes. The latest designs, though, actually have pretty good performance. They open up like flower petals but they rarely break off and retain weight (maintain momentum) well so the penetration is generally excellent... better than lead bullets of the same weights since lead bullets will break pieces off more and lose weight as they pass through.

@HisMajestyTheKing: Non-lead ammo is about twice the price of jacketed-lead. This is probably not very significant when you're talking about hunting, where you might shoot a couple dozen rounds in a very unsuccessful day. When you're talking about 'shooting sports' in general, you might run 200 rounds a day in an average match, you're talking about pricing most people out of the sport.

To most of the groups involved in pushing for the ban, that's a feature, not a bug.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them? Please understand that I'm not claiming these birds aren't important. Quite frankly, I don't know if they serve any purpose in the ecosystem, but the article does not make any claims that they do.

As for the banning of lead ammunition, California already has some of the most ridiculous anti-gun regulations in the US. I don't doubt for a second that many of these "conservation" groups are in bed with anti-gunners who want to do everything in their power to effectively ban gun ownership in California. If these groups really cared, then they would do their best to work with hunters, to educate them in good practices.

"But how can we be sure the lead in those condors came from ammunition in carcasses and not some natural source? To see, the researchers measured the lead-207/lead-206 isotopic signature in 132 blood samples. Of those samples, 79 percent were consistent with lead ammunition and 27 percent were within the range of “background” ratios in captive birds (there’s some overlap). "

This strikes me as a bit odd. There are a number of different ammunition manufacturers, do they all have the same lead isotopes?

Frankly the whole concept that there are a lot of people hunting and killing animals but then not collecting the carcass seems suspect. I can imagine people killing 'pest' species and leaving the carcass, but im not so sure how widespread that might be. With such a small sample size, its possible that the results might be skewed by a few cases or a few false positives.

Struck me as odd too. I can't seem to pull the article up, but I'd like to see if they have any observations of what species the condors are eating and what percentage of their diet comes from those species. My guess is that is where some good answers may be found. In many states it is unlawful to shoot a game animal and purposefully not harvest it (not sure about non-game species). If the condors eat a lot of game birds I can see it being more plausible that they are ingesting lead shot directly. If the condors eat mainly other species, the lead may be entering the food chain somewhere else and building up in the condors.

Frankly the whole concept that there are a lot of people hunting and killing animals but then not collecting the carcass seems suspect. I can imagine people killing 'pest' species and leaving the carcass, but im not so sure how widespread that might be. With such a small sample size, its possible that the results might be skewed by a few cases or a few false positives.

I'm not sure what you mean by "small sample size", they tested most condors here.

But the problem is that it doesn't matter how many people are doing it, so long as some are it's likely to become food for these condors. The goal here is to protect the condors, not to reduce people shooting/dumping carcasses, so as long as it's happening anywhere it's a problem.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them? Please understand that I'm not claiming these birds aren't important. Quite frankly, I don't know if they serve any purpose in the ecosystem, but the article does not make any claims that they do.

They basically help speed up the decomposition of a carcass by eating a large portion of the mass of the body.

One thing that concerns me is that the level of lead in condor blood has been identical from both before and after the ban: one would expect some fluctuation or change, due to the reduction in the number of hunters using lead ammunition in condor territory.

One thing that bears mentioning that I haven't seen yet: quite a number of the condors live and fly in Arizona as well as California, which I believe does not have a ban on lead ammunition for hunting. I don't know if this is mentioned in the original article or not, as I haven't been able to pull it up. Why does DOI never work?

One thing that bears mentioning that I haven't seen yet: quite a number of the condors live and fly in Arizona as well as California, which I believe does not have a ban on lead ammunition for hunting. I don't know if this is mentioned in the original article or not, as I haven't been able to pull it up. Why does DOI never work?

Paper only cleared embargo a couple hours ago.

You're right about Arizona on both counts, as far as I know.All the birds sampled in this study were Californian.

We found that over the course of ten years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will encounter a contaminated carcass is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

It seems to me the answer isn't to ban lead bullets across a state for this. One asshat disobeying the law will cause the same level of damage we see now, it seems.

Adding an education component to the hunting licenses regarding tracking kills; now that might actually make a difference.

But again, if such a small portion of lead is responsible for this, I don't see any system being effective in saving these creatures from lead poisoning, except perhaps using the GPS data to cordon off its living areas better. But if that area is too big even that won't work.

On a more serious note: is it that bad not to shoot with lead ammo? Probably more expensive but some hunters just don't care about anything other than killing something.

This research, this article and Californian conservationist are trapped in a fundamental error. The assumption that lead poisoning is the greatest threat to these bird's existence flawed. Almost all hunting ammunition is copper jacketed anyway, but that's beside the point. Lead ammunition is occasionally used for pistol practice, but you won't find it in an animals carcass. Large game hunters want meat, they don't use lead bullets (because high rifle velocities demand jacket material that does not melt or rub off in the rifling). Shotgun hunters may use lead pellets in the field (but not over water) because lead is very dense and provides better ballistics than other materials. A pellet is not a bullet.

The biggest threat to condors or any other large raptor is electrical power lines. Why can't researchers wrap their minds around that simple fact? Living several hundred miles east of California, I have seen a dead condor carcass on the ground and its mate (on a different day) roosting upon a major power line pole not too far away. In the desert or in other arid regions there are simply not very many attractive roost for these far sighted birds. Their wingspan is wide enough to shunt themselves out. I've seen a Great Horned owl die the same way. Another reason for the condor's decline is probably a lack of food. As civilization encroaches, plentiful dead game (like roaming herds of millions of buffalo) has dried up; as for domestic animals - we either eat those ourselves or bury them perhaps.

One pretty major correction: the lead-ban petition targets not ammo used in hunting, it targets ammunition used "for shooting sports", meaning essential all non-exotic, non-hollowpoint ammunition.

Because of existing regulation on the use of exotic dense metals in handgun bullets (due to previous concerns about 'armor-piercing' bullets), there are very few practical metals this would leave you handgun ammunition. This is why this proposal has received significant push-back from the gun-rights community.

@HisMajestyTheKing: Non-lead ammo is about twice the price of jacketed-lead. This is probably not very significant when you're talking about hunting, where you might shoot a couple dozen rounds in a very unsuccessful day. When you're talking about 'shooting sports' in general, you might run 200 rounds a day in an average match, you're talking about pricing most people out of the sport.

"Shooting sports" to me sounds like shooting on a range or something so in a relatively controlled environment so using lead ammo would seem to have little or no impact on wildlife. Why ban lead ammo there? What's the reasoning behind the ban?

Hunting should be more strictly regulated - there's no reason for most people to go out shooting animals regardles of the risk of poisoning carrion eaters. Probably not easy to keep poachers in check in the vast lightly inhabited regionas in the US I guess.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them? Please understand that I'm not claiming these birds aren't important. Quite frankly, I don't know if they serve any purpose in the ecosystem, but the article does not make any claims that they do.

As for the banning of lead ammunition, California already has some of the most ridiculous anti-gun regulations in the US. I don't doubt for a second that many of these "conservation" groups are in bed with anti-gunners who want to do everything in their power to effectively ban gun ownership in California. If these groups really cared, then they would do their best to work with hunters, to educate them in good practices.

Most ecosystems will survive the extinction of species (animals or plants). When to many species get extinct though, the ecosystems will fail - or change more likely because nature is a hardy thing. Still, why not try to save species from extinction? You might as well say that we should not help people after some natural disaster because their value in the great scheme of things is relatively small and humans are hardly endangered.

"Shooting sports" to me sounds like shooting on a range or something so in a relatively controlled environment so using lead ammo would seem to have little or no impact on wildlife. Why ban lead ammo there? What's the reasoning behind the ban?

This is indeed what is normally meant by "shooting sports". Shooting clays, target shooting, action shooting, and other activities, typically in a range environment or less often in remote portions of non-Park-Service public land. The petition actually names target shooting and clay shooting and shooting ranges as targets, which is why I think this is worth a correction to the article: the petition is mostly not about hunting. The hunting-only bans, as the article notes, didn't have any measurable effect.

The petition talks about how ranges can build up "substantial accumulation of spent lead in localized areas" and expresses concerns about how this lead can become available to the local wildlife populations. I think this is a legitimate concern (and one that ranges try to manage, particularly in states where the politics demands it) but essentially destroying the shooting sports this way isn't a solution I'm personally comfortable with.

One pretty major correction: the lead-ban petition targets not ammo used in hunting, it targets ammunition used "for shooting sports", meaning essential all non-exotic, non-hollowpoint ammunition.

Because of existing regulation on the use of exotic dense metals in handgun bullets (due to previous concerns about 'armor-piercing' bullets), there are very few practical metals this would leave you handgun ammunition. This is why this proposal has received significant push-back from the gun-rights community.

@HisMajestyTheKing: Non-lead ammo is about twice the price of jacketed-lead. This is probably not very significant when you're talking about hunting, where you might shoot a couple dozen rounds in a very unsuccessful day. When you're talking about 'shooting sports' in general, you might run 200 rounds a day in an average match, you're talking about pricing most people out of the sport.

"Shooting sports" to me sounds like shooting on a range or something so in a relatively controlled environment so using lead ammo would seem to have little or no impact on wildlife. Why ban lead ammo there? What's the reasoning behind the ban?

Hunting should be more strictly regulated - there's no reason for most people to go out shooting animals regardles of the risk of poisoning carrion eaters. Probably not easy to keep poachers in check in the vast lightly inhabited regionas in the US I guess.

The ban extending to range shooting ammo would be news to me. From the webpage I linked in the article: "to prohibit the use of projectiles containing lead for hunting deer, bear, wild pig, elk, and pronghorn antelope in areas designated as California condor range. Modifications to Methods of Take for Nongame Birds and Mammals (Section 475, Title 14, CCR) were also adopted to prohibit the use of lead projectiles in the same areas when hunting coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife... NOTE! Lead Projectiles are still legal for hunting upland game species within the nonlead zone."

and from the FAQ: "What about target shooting, “plinking”, or firearms for personal protection? The Commission does not regulate these activities. Use of lead projectiles is legal unless another government entity has determined otherwise for lands they administer. The regulations prohibiting lead only relate to possession while engaged in specified hunting activities."

Lead ammo on any range being discharged into a waterway is a no-no (regulated under Clean Water Act), but use in "terrestrial" ranges is allowed. You have to make an effort to recover the lead from the soil when you close up shop, though.

Edit: Ah, the original comment related to the petitions, not the California ban. Still, I'll leave this for clarity.

Edit: Ah, the original comment related to the petitions, not the California ban. Still, I'll leave this for clarity.

Indeed! Sorry for any confusion; I was referring only to the proposed petition and lawsuit. From the executive summary of the petition:

Quote:

...issuance of a rule under Section 6 of TCSA to regulate bullets and shot containing lead used in hunting and shooting sports (such as target and skeet shooting), which have the potential to cause harmful lead exposure to wildlife and humans.

Had the petition been merely to ban only hunting use of lead ammunition, the political will to oppose this wouldn't be especially as strong (although it might still be precluded by an act of Congress). By targeting all shooting sports, this petition waded right into the middle of the culture war, and has about as much chance of being implemented as, well, something that's very unlikely.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them? Please understand that I'm not claiming these birds aren't important. Quite frankly, I don't know if they serve any purpose in the ecosystem, but the article does not make any claims that they do.

As for the banning of lead ammunition, California already has some of the most ridiculous anti-gun regulations in the US. I don't doubt for a second that many of these "conservation" groups are in bed with anti-gunners who want to do everything in their power to effectively ban gun ownership in California. If these groups really cared, then they would do their best to work with hunters, to educate them in good practices.

Beyond what is already known about the species and its place in the environment, lacking omniscience there is no way to know. For example, until its pharmaceutical uses were discovered you might have asked the same question about the Pacific Yew tree. Or non-obvious at the time negative environmental effects like those resulting from removal of top predators like wolves which weren't known until after they were removed (and put back in the case of wolves).

Maybe the condor somehow holds a yet undiscovered clue to the cure or treatment of a terrible disease, or their disappearance from the environment causes issues well removed from the condor itself - something the condor does effects something which effects something which effects something which causes something very bad to happen. Or maybe nothing happens. Either way, once extinct there is presently no way back.

And all this ignores the moral issue of ending an entire species... And the related matter of depriving future generations of its existence. These are no small issues.

Large game hunters want meat, they don't use lead bullets (because high rifle velocities demand jacket material that does not melt or rub off in the rifling).

Lead based bullets perform perfectly well in rifles. The standard rifle bullet is a lead core surrounded by a gilding metal jacket (still has lead in it... a lot of lead, actually). Traditional bullets are called cup-n-core (examples: Remington Core-Lokt, Hornady InterLock, Nosler Partition). The jacket is the cup and molten lead alloy is poured into it, or some variation of that. Bonded core bullets are also used, the core is chemically bonded to the jacket. This helps the bullet retain weight as it's traveling through (examples: Hornady InterBond, Nosler Accubond). What you may be thinking of are cast lead bullets, will are just lead cast into the shape. Those are not suitable, really, for anything over handgun velocities. I've seen studies that show that hunters using lead based rifle bullets don't show any more lead contamination in themselves than someone who only eats supermarket meat.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them?

I'm going to do something a bit different than my usual argument about keystone species and ecology. Condors represent the largest flying animals around today. Do you remember the 10-foot tall elephant bird? No, because it was killed off before you were born. How about Megalania? Nope, killed off before you were born. Lonesome George, a 100-year old (middle-aged!) Galapagos tortoise just kicked the bucket; all the other members of his subspecies were killed by hunters and sailors and their food sources taken over by goats. We nearly killed off all of America's bison and bald eagles, both were important ecologically and extremely important to our shared national identity. Why should we tolerate the continued loss and extinction of all these amazing, record-setting creatures? What unique benefits, unobtainable any other way, do we get in exchange for losing them forever? What do we gain by replacing them with the common pigeons, rats, buzzards, pigs, and goats that are already secured as far as the species is concerned? We're making the world blander, less interesting, and populated by pests and weeds even to the point of losing creatures that we pride ourselves for having within our borders.

Quote:

As for the banning of lead ammunition, California already has some of the most ridiculous anti-gun regulations in the US. I don't doubt for a second that many of these "conservation" groups are in bed with anti-gunners who want to do everything in their power to effectively ban gun ownership in California.

Lead based bullets perform perfectly well in rifles. The standard rifle bullet is a lead core surrounded by a gilding metal jacket (still has lead in it... a lot of lead, actually). ........ I've seen studies that show that hunters using lead based rifle bullets don't show any more lead contamination in themselves than someone who only eats supermarket meat.

Yes I am quite aware of the composition of most standard bullets, and aware that many (like boat-tails) that you did not mention are completely covered in copper. The point is that hunting bullets or any other type of bullet probably have little to do with the condor's woes.

Lead based bullets perform perfectly well in rifles. The standard rifle bullet is a lead core surrounded by a gilding metal jacket (still has lead in it... a lot of lead, actually). ........ I've seen studies that show that hunters using lead based rifle bullets don't show any more lead contamination in themselves than someone who only eats supermarket meat.

Yes I am quite aware of the composition of most standard bullets, and aware that many (like boat-tails) that you did not mention are completely covered in copper. The point is that hunting bullets probably have little to do with the condor's woes.

Almost every hunting bullet I've ever used, boat tail or not, has been covered in gilding metal except for perhaps the exposed lead tip. (Partitions, one of the few exceptions, have exposed lead at the rear.) Ballistic tip bullets may have hollow points at the tip or a plastic tip, but still can have lead inside (SST, Nosler Ballistic Tip, etc.)

I agree with you, mostly, though. One place where I could see a problem would be poachers and varmint/nuisance 'hunters'. I know some people who shoot those animals leave the carcasses in the field. If they use lead bullets, there may be an issue. Varmint bullets fragment very quickly so it could leave those fragments in the carcass. Larger game (from the list) aren't legally hunted with lead bullets but even then, they are generally recovered by reasonable hunters and the carcasses not left in the wild.

And we care that a species is going extinct why, exactly? If these condors aren't contributing anything significant to the ecosystem and won't cause any kind of imbalance if they're not there, then why are we trying to bend over backwards to save them? Please understand that I'm not claiming these birds aren't important. Quite frankly, I don't know if they serve any purpose in the ecosystem, but the article does not make any claims that they do.

As for the banning of lead ammunition, California already has some of the most ridiculous anti-gun regulations in the US. I don't doubt for a second that many of these "conservation" groups are in bed with anti-gunners who want to do everything in their power to effectively ban gun ownership in California. If these groups really cared, then they would do their best to work with hunters, to educate them in good practices.

Most ecosystems will survive the extinction of species (animals or plants). When to many species get extinct though, the ecosystems will fail - or change more likely because nature is a hardy thing. Still, why not try to save species from extinction? You might as well say that we should not help people after some natural disaster because their value in the great scheme of things is relatively small and humans are hardly endangered.

If an ecosystem is beneficial to human life, then by all means, do everything you can to keep it stable. Inversely, if an ecosystem or a species itself serves no beneficial purpose, then I see no reason to attempt to save it. Take note here that this article seems to be complaining that a single species of condor may go extinct. Are there other species of condors or carrion birds in California which are not going extinct? How are carrion birds in general faring in California? Will other carrion birds take the place of the California Condor once it is extinct? Does this lead poisoning problem affect the ecosystem at large, or is it just the California Condor?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the mere fact that a species is going extinct is not a good enough reason in and of itself to attempt to save it, especially if that requires considerable effort and money or ulterior motives are involved, such as anti-gunners attempting to use this as a vehicle to ban any and all lead ammunition for any purpose, as has been pointed out by a few people. If you can make a reasonable argument that this lead poisoning problem affects the ecosystem as a whole or that the extinction of the California Condor would be a Bad ThingTM, then I am more than willing to discuss steps to correct this problem. However, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon simply because a species is going extinct.

This problem is complicated by the fact that there are many in California who are doing everything in their power to ban hunting (and guns) altogether, regardless of the impact on the ecosystem. A lot of the proposed laws and regulations are politically charged. It is quite difficult for me to work with people on the other side of the aisle when they aren't being honest about their motives.

In general yes, though afaik in most states, as long as you haven't been banned due to previous infractions, all you need is to be old enough and have the money to pay for it.

Just to note that to get a hunting license in CA as with most states you needed to go through hunter safety or have hunted before with a proven hunter.

Also please and this is key, the hunting that they are discussing is not large game. Large game is readily recovered and the amount of lead in the left over carcuss would be negligible depending on how you recover your animal.

The lead they are most likely talking about is either shot from a shot gun for upland birds, or ammo used to varmit hunt which would be quite common in SoCal. The varmit are not recovered and the lead shot from a shotgun could be in unrecovered birds.

There has been a ban on lead shot for waterfowl hunthing for quite sometime. This was an effort to stop bottom feeding birds from ingesting the pellets that miss and allowing predatory birds to get sick.

Is the replacement for lead ammo any better? It seems like any useable ammunition would still cause heavy metal poisoning.

No, the monolithic bullets are either straight copper, or gilding metal (copper/zinc alloy). Not only are they lead-free, but since the metal is more durable than lead, the bullets don't fragment during penetration. Typically they retain close to 100% of their original weight, and there are no particles in the meat.

Generally, they don't cause quite as extensive internal damage, on the other hand they penetrate more deeply given the same muzzle velocity - most often exiting the animal. That's good for producing a reliable blood trail.

Note the four petals on the Barnes Tipped TSX bullet - they have a cutting action in addition to the traditional blunt force action:

Why has the lead from alleged left over hunter kills not affected other carrion eating animals, like coyotes, or turkey vultures? I'd say those two eat consume many many more of those left kills, then the 200 some condors can, shouldn't they also be suffering from lead poisoning? Any test been done for others animal, to confirm this may be the source of the lead?